Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of exhibiting British business and showcasing British talents is to ensure that British products are in use in oversees markets? That being the case, will she join me in welcoming the negotiations on a possible joint venture between MG Rover Group and Shanghai Automotive? It offers the prospect not only of selling those products in Chinese markets, but of investment here in the United Kingdom. While recent press reports have been wide of the mark, will she assure the House that the Government are doing all that they can to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion?

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that two thirds of a massive problem in my constituency has been cracked; first, by the provision of £104 million by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to clear up Avenue cokeworks, and secondly with £400 million from the Department of Trade and Industry to clear the neighbouring Grassmoor lagoons? However, the third aspect of the problem is the health of the workers at the Avenue site and that of the surrounding community. Responses about the situation from the Department of Health have not been helpful. May we have a statement from a Health Minister to show that the Department is on to the issue and taking up information from the other two Departments about the serious contamination that occurred on the sites?

Peter Hain: Regulations have been laid, but they have not been debated yet, as my hon. Friend said. Of course, there will be an opportunity to scrutinise them. My hon. Friend will understand that there is a difficult choice of the kind that we have to make in government from time to time.
	Everyone, including the trade unions and my hon. Friend, accepts that public sector pensions must be reformed to cope with the problem of an ageing society. Despite the high levels of employment, there are proportionately fewer people are in employment to help to fund pensions. The public sector must be reformed, just as we reformed our own salaries. I rebut the charge that Members of Parliament have not reformed their own pensions. We have done so, and we are phasing out early retirement privileges in line with other parts of the public sector. The regulations were introduced to help to create greater funding stability in local government and keep the council tax down. That is one of the difficult balances that the Deputy Prime Minister had to strike.

Andrew MacKay: I hesitate to be harsh with the poor Leader of the House after his humiliation at the hands of the Government Whips yesterday, when all his motions were defeated on the Floor of the House. However, I take issue with his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), and his suggestion that filibustering had taken place during the Committee stage of the Identity Cards Bill. That is a direct attack on the senior and distinguished Chairman of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). The Leader of the House will recall that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) had to come to the House and apologise for making allegations of filibustering, which are an attack on the Chair. Would the Leader of the House like to apologise to my hon. Friend?

Douglas Hogg: Can the Leader of the House provide an early debate on the selection of Committees—Select, Standing and other? That is particularly important as, after the election, we will be setting up Select Committees. Does he agree that it is undesirable that the those on the Front Benches should have the influence that they now have on the selection of Committees? It would be better by far if membership of a Committee were decided by ballot, with the Selection Committee filling up only the residue.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Provision of First Class Passenger Accommodation

Mark Francois: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and new clause 5, which calls for the publication of annual rail efficiency report by Network Rail. I should probably declare a small personal interest at this point, in as much as the chairman of Network Rail, Mr. Ian McAllister, is a constituent of mine, and I have written to him on the issue that I wish to raise this afternoon.
	I wish to back the suggestion for a specific efficiency report, because a good number of my constituents are commuters. Many of them work in the City of London and travel into Liverpool Street station each morning. The efficiency of Network Rail is of considerable importance to them, not least because there are now important capacity issues on the Liverpool Street line. Network Rail, and Railtrack before it, has undertaken work to upgrade the line, both in terms of signalling improvements and initiatives such as lengthening some of the platforms at stations to facilitate the operation of 12-carriage trains, which are obviously more efficient. We also now have the combined franchise, operated by the 'one' group, which has led to some improvement in the co-ordination of services in and out of Liverpool Street, although the new timetable is taking a while to settle down.
	Important physical constraints must be faced, however, including a narrow entrance, or neck, in and out of Liverpool Street station, so that it is comparatively difficult to run many more trains in and out, especially during the morning and evening peaks. Incidentally, if we are to see much expansion in house building in the Thames gateway area, that restriction will be an increasing problem, because at least some of the people who will live in those houses will want to commute into London. Ministers will have to be conscious of that.

Tony McNulty: I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right. He will understand that I did not follow the debate on establishing the SRA with the same attention to detail and interest with which I am following the current debate, for obvious reasons. However, in the past year or two, the SRA has moved more readily towards a regional focus and taken account of the regional sensitivities that exist throughout the United Kingdom. We do not want to lose that in replicating the SRA functions that the Department for Transport rail unit, rather than the SRA, will cover.
	Amendment No. 33 would give the Assembly a great deal more power—more power than Scottish Ministers would enjoy. It would make the National Assembly and the Secretary of State joint signatories to all the English franchises that cross the border into Wales. The Scottish Ministers will not have that power for the east and west coast franchises—the rough parallel that one could draw.
	The core of the Bill as it relates to Wales is the Assembly's role in the Arriva Trains Wales franchise. That is the only franchise that currently provides what the Bill defines as "Wales-only services". As drafted, the Bill gives the Assembly the right to be a joint signatory with the Secretary of State to the Arriva Trains Wales franchise, thus recognising the importance of that franchise to Wales.
	Clause 10(1) deals with the other important relationship between the Secretary of State and the National Assembly: on consultation about all franchises that serve Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North made that point earlier. The Assembly will have the clear right to be consulted about franchises that provide Welsh services. That will give the Assembly the opportunity to say what it would like to achieve for Wales from them. It will also be able to use the broad powers in clause 10 to provide financial assistance to secure additional services from the relevant franchisee.
	If he considered it appropriate, the Secretary of State could invite the National Assembly to be a joint signatory to a franchise that provided Welsh services—for example, if the Assembly wished to secure significant services via the franchise. Clause 10(3) enables him to do that. However, it is right that that remains a flexible option. I do not therefore believe that amendment No. 33 is necessary.
	Amendment No. 36 would enable the Assembly to be the recipient of franchise assets at the end of a franchise agreement. At the end of the term of a franchise in England and Wales, it will be the Secretary of State's responsibility to make a transfer scheme in relation to the franchise assets. In Scotland, that role will be performed by Scottish Ministers.
	Clause 12 sets out the parties to whom the franchise assets may transfer. They include the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or a company that is either wholly or jointly owned by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, and a franchise company. The Secretary of State must consult every party to which he proposes to transfer assets before making the transfer scheme.
	The primary intention of the clause is to transfer designated franchise assets at the end of the franchise to the new operator of train services. In the vast majority of cases, the new operator will be the new private sector franchisee. A transfer scheme will be made to transfer the franchise assets from the old franchise company to the new one. The out-going company will be paid by the in-coming train operator for the franchise assets in accordance with the terms of the franchise agreement.
	In a small number of cases, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or companies owned by them will operate a train service as the operator of last resort on a temporary basis. Assets such as ticket machines and office equipment will therefore have to be transferred to those bodies to allow them to provide the service. There is no provision in the Bill for the National Assembly for Wales to operate services as the operator of last resort. The Assembly is therefore not included in the list of bodies that can receive a transfer of franchise assets.
	That does not prevent the Assembly from owning certain assets in relation to a franchise. For example, if the Assembly were to invest in the Arriva Trains Wales franchise and there were certain assets that it considered should remain the responsibility of the Assembly, those assets need not be designated as franchise assets. The franchise agreement could clearly state that those assets were not among the franchise assets and were to be returned to the Assembly, which would then decide how they were to be used. On replacing the Arriva Trains Wales franchise in future, it would be for the Assembly to decide how it wished such assets to be used by the new franchise operator. The Assembly will of course be involved in the re-letting process, and will be consulted by the Secretary of State about that franchise and all franchises that serve Wales. However the ultimate statutory responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. I am therefore convinced that amendment No. 36 is unnecessary.
	I understand the import of amendments Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 48 to 51, which all seek to make the National Assembly for Wales the national authority in Wales for the purposes of clauses that deal with network modifications. At present, the Secretary of State has that role. The amendments, if accepted, would give the Assembly the same status in Wales as Scottish Ministers have in Scotland in this regard. Throughout clauses 22 to 31, the only national authorities are the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers. Scottish Ministers have this duty for all services, stations and networks wholly within Scotland and for some cross-border services; it rests with the Secretary of State in all other circumstances. This reflects and is part of the much wider devolution of responsibility for railway policy and funding to Scottish Ministers. Apart from in a few important areas such as safety, Scottish Ministers now have policy responsibility for all aspects of Scotland's railway. That makes it appropriate for them to be the national authority in the circumstances that I have just described.
	As hon. Members have pointed out, that devolution settlement has not been extended to Wales. Under the Bill, devolution of railway policy and funding to the Assembly is much less extensive than to Scottish Ministers, and I fully accept that that is the cause of the complaint by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The Assembly is taking on responsibility for franchising services in Wales, and those starting and finishing in Wales, through the Arriva Trains Wales franchise. However, the Secretary of State continues to have a major role relating to the railway in Wales—in specifying high-level outputs for the railway under schedule 4 to the Bill and funding the network, for example. Part of the reason for this is that the network in Wales is much less discrete an entity than the network in Scotland, which makes fuller devolution difficult at present.
	That being the case, it would be inappropriate for the Assembly to be the national authority for the purposes of this clause. Retaining this role for the Secretary of State fits better with the more general approach to devolving railway responsibilities to the Assembly, and is also simpler and more straightforward. Of course, in acting as the national authority for the purposes of the clause, the Secretary of State will need to consult and work closely with the National Assembly. There is already a requirement in schedule 7 for the Assembly to be a statutory consultee in relation to all closure proposals affecting Wales. Backing this up will be the extensive formal and informal discussions envisaged in the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the National Assembly.

John Thurso: I am following the Minister's argument with some interest. He makes a powerful argument that the measures in the Bill are stronger that the new clause. On the question of consultation, can he say whether the SRA is—or the Secretary of State will be—under any obligation to consult the Disability Rights Commission, which has been established since the 1993 legislation?

'Regulatory Reform Act 200113A      The effect of the preceding provisions of this Schedule is to be disregarded in determining for the purposes of section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (power by order to make provision reforming law which imposes burdens) whether any provision of the 1974 Act falls within subsection (4)(a) of that section (provision amended by Act within previous two years).'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	 — 
	Schedule 11
	 — 
	Miscellaneous Amendments of 1993 Act